(Or do you mean do not curb your incorrect interpretation of incredibly broad (unlimited) scope of the Second Amendment. Your interpretation contrary to the Supreme Court. Remember, as confirmed by the Supreme Court, the Bill of Rights is not absolute. You can't cry "fire!" in a crowded theater, for instance.)

Originally posted by AThousandYoung to johnnylongwoodyMaybe if Ireland had more guns and a decent navy your island would be yours again.

I am far from being an admirer of British imperialism. But if the UK's government
and the British Army always had been as ruthlessly oppressive toward Ireland as
some Irish nationalists like to keep claiming, then the Republic of Ireland might
not be an independent country today. The Irish nationalists might still be fighting
an inconclusive guerrilla war against British soldiers and/or Unionist militias.

Comparing the population, resources, and industrial capacities of the UK and
the Republic of Ireland, it's absurd to suggest the Republic of Ireland could win
an all-out conventional war against the UK, if the British took it seriously.

(Or do you mean do not curb your incorrect interpretation of incred ...[text shortened]... l of Rights is not absolute. You can't cry "fire!" in a crowded theater, for instance.)

The US Constitution's Second Amendment is not a law in Canada.

Some Americans have been arrested for inadvertently crossing the border into
Canada while carrying guns in their vehicles. Canada, which has gun control,
faces a problem of having guns illegally smuggled in from the United States.
So how could the Canadian police readily distinguish beween a 'lost' American
who accidentally made an 'honest mistake' (forgetting about his gun) and an
American who expects to be paid to smuggle a gun for sale in Canada?

Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyDo you not think that it's time to update your constitution?

It pertains to 18th century thinking.

Here in Ireland we are updating our constitution all the time to suit modern times.

There are currently eleven amendments on the cards to be voted on
over the next few years.

No one says it's perfect but at least we are trying.

It's been ...[text shortened]... took the gun out of your constitution
then only the police and the military would have them.

"Do you not think that it's time to update your constitution?"

I just checked, and we have done so 17 times since the Bill of Rights. A number of other amendments have been defeated, and some of the ones passed have been subsequently repealed, such as the 18th being repealed by the 21st.

There is not complete agreement with a great many of the amendments made. Besides amendments we can call for a Constitutional convention, but this is mostly dismissed to to fears that partisanship and special interests would make a mockery of the process.

The courts have made major alterations, and even the legislature gets into the act.

If a Constitution doesn't have some permanence, and is too easily changed it doesn't really serve any function over that of regular legislation.

"It's been over 230 years since you got rid of your tyrannical rulers."

They were rightful rulers, and there is never a guarantee that rightful rulers will not become tyrannical, nor that we will never be attacked by an outside enemy. The intent of a citizen militia was to avoid a massive standing army which we now have, and is as much a threat to liberty as when that massive army was loyal to the King of England.

Originally posted by Duchess64I am far from being an admirer of British imperialism. But if the UK's government
and the British Army always had been as ruthlessly oppressive toward Ireland as
some Irish nationalists like to keep claiming, then the Republic of Ireland might
not be an independent country today. The Irish nationalists might still be fighting
an inconclusive guerrill ...[text shortened]... eland could win
an all-out conventional war against the UK, if the British took it seriously.

It was absurd to think that the 13 north american colonies could defeat the mighty British army and navy in 1775. Of course 3000 miles of ocean, and an unwillingness to commit resources may have had a bit to do with the result.

Ireland was much more simple to keep under the British thumb than colonies around the world.

Originally posted by normbenign"Do you not think that it's time to update your constitution?"

I just checked, and we have done so 17 times since the Bill of Rights. A number of other amendments have been defeated, and some of the ones passed have been subsequently repealed, such as the 18th being repealed by the 21st.

There is not complete agreement with a great many of the amend ...[text shortened]... ogue is the way forward now."

Of course, but nobody listens to unarmed complainers.

"The intent of a citizen militia was to avoid a massive standing army which we now have, and is as much a threat to liberty as when that massive army was loyal to the King of England. "

Is there anything you think we need to do about the massive standing army being a threat to liberty?

Do you think proper interpretation of the infringement clause in the 2nd and citizen action to the extent allowed by it, will adequately deal with this threat?

Who will protect us from the deeds and misdeeds of our protectors (I count Lanza's mother's lack of vigilance regarding her weapons' security to be a misdeed)?

Originally posted by JS357"The intent of a citizen militia was to avoid a massive standing army which we now have, and is as much a threat to liberty as when that massive army was loyal to the King of England. "

Is there anything you think we need to do about the massive standing army being a threat to liberty?

Do you think proper interpretation of the infringement clause in the ...[text shortened]... count Lanza's mother's lack of vigilance regarding her weapons' security to be a misdeed)?

Clearly, the founders thought an army a temporary expedient in case of foreign invasion. This may perhaps be an anachronism, but we don't need bases around the world, nukes enough to kill all mankind 30 times over, or even enough military power to fight a two front war. We don't need the most fearsome fighters or other weapons systems, at least not on an operational basis.

The days of posse comitatis are gone, and we now have "fusion centers" and FEMA camps with inward facing barbed wire, and signs warning people against escape attempts.

"Do you think proper interpretation of the infringement clause in the 2nd and citizen action to the extent allowed by it, will adequately deal with this threat?"

Properly, the people should not be interfered with or their rights infringed. The current infringements are minor, but suggestion afoot are advocating greater infringements.

"Who will protect us from the deeds and misdeeds of our protectors (I count Lanza's mother's lack of vigilance regarding her weapons' security to be a misdeed)?"

Yes, but school shootings are rare. A child is more likely to be struck by lightening than to be killed by a semi auto rifle with a large magazine. Adam Lanza's mother brings up another issue, which was the subject of a link I provided to an interview with Larry Elder. He emphasizes that it is fatherless young men who do the majority of the shooting and killing in the US.

Giving up liberties for security is fools gold. One ends up with neither security, nor liberty.

Originally posted by normbenignIt was absurd to think that the 13 north american colonies could defeat the mighty British army and navy in 1775. Of course 3000 miles of ocean, and an unwillingness to commit resources may have had a bit to do with the result.

Ireland was much more simple to keep under the British thumb than colonies around the world.

The British lost the War of American Independence for several reasons.
One of the most important was the lavish French support (military, logistical,
financial) for the Americans. Without that French support, the American
nationalists might well have been unable to prevail in the end.

The Battle of Yorktown was primarily a French victory, not an American victory.
Most of the regular soldiers there (not counting the American militia) were French,
not Americans. And the Continental Army was largely supplied by the French.
Without the blockading French fleet, of course, the British forces at Yorktown
could have been evacuated by sea and been able to fight again another day.
The French aided the American nationalists on a scale that they never
approached with doing toward the Irish nationalists.

A friend of mine, who's of Irish Catholic heritage and sympathetic toward Irish
nationalist, once told me that he found it hard to believe that the Irish nationalists
could have defeated the British in an all-out conventional war when Ireland's
population was smaller than London's.